| Message ID | 20191224035117.98816-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Jiri Kosina |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] HID: hiddev: remove a duplicated check | expand |
Does no one pay attention to this problem? Although there is no
functional problem, but it seems confusing.
if (!list->hiddev->exist) { <---------
res = -ENODEV; |
goto bail_unlock; |
} |
if (!list->hiddev->open++) |
if (list->hiddev->exist) { <--------- //It's always true.
On 2019/12/24 11:51, Zhen Lei wrote:
> After commit 9c09b214f30e ("HID: hiddev: avoid opening a disconnected
> device"), the original check "list->hiddev->exist" become unnecessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> index e421cdf2d1a4ec5..e04cf95fca094a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c
> @@ -292,16 +292,16 @@ static int hiddev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> res = -ENODEV;
> goto bail_unlock;
> }
> - if (!list->hiddev->open++)
> - if (list->hiddev->exist) {
> - struct hid_device *hid = hiddev->hid;
> - res = hid_hw_power(hid, PM_HINT_FULLON);
> - if (res < 0)
> - goto bail_unlock;
> - res = hid_hw_open(hid);
> - if (res < 0)
> - goto bail_normal_power;
> - }
> + if (!list->hiddev->open++) {
> + struct hid_device *hid = hiddev->hid;
> +
> + res = hid_hw_power(hid, PM_HINT_FULLON);
> + if (res < 0)
> + goto bail_unlock;
> + res = hid_hw_open(hid);
> + if (res < 0)
> + goto bail_normal_power;
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&hiddev->existancelock);
> return 0;
> bail_normal_power:
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > Does no one pay attention to this problem? Although there is no > functional problem, but it seems confusing. > > if (!list->hiddev->exist) { <--------- > res = -ENODEV; | > goto bail_unlock; | > } | > if (!list->hiddev->open++) | > if (list->hiddev->exist) { <--------- //It's always true. This code no longer exists after refactoring that happened in commit 18a1b06e5b91d47.
On 2020/1/14 22:19, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > >> Does no one pay attention to this problem? Although there is no >> functional problem, but it seems confusing. >> >> if (!list->hiddev->exist) { <--------- >> res = -ENODEV; | >> goto bail_unlock; | >> } | >> if (!list->hiddev->open++) | >> if (list->hiddev->exist) { <--------- //It's always true. > > This code no longer exists after refactoring that happened in commit > 18a1b06e5b91d47. OK >
diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c index e421cdf2d1a4ec5..e04cf95fca094a8 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c @@ -292,16 +292,16 @@ static int hiddev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) res = -ENODEV; goto bail_unlock; } - if (!list->hiddev->open++) - if (list->hiddev->exist) { - struct hid_device *hid = hiddev->hid; - res = hid_hw_power(hid, PM_HINT_FULLON); - if (res < 0) - goto bail_unlock; - res = hid_hw_open(hid); - if (res < 0) - goto bail_normal_power; - } + if (!list->hiddev->open++) { + struct hid_device *hid = hiddev->hid; + + res = hid_hw_power(hid, PM_HINT_FULLON); + if (res < 0) + goto bail_unlock; + res = hid_hw_open(hid); + if (res < 0) + goto bail_normal_power; + } mutex_unlock(&hiddev->existancelock); return 0; bail_normal_power:
After commit 9c09b214f30e ("HID: hiddev: avoid opening a disconnected device"), the original check "list->hiddev->exist" become unnecessary. Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> --- drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)